Prev: Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
Next: Spare parts for a filing cabinet?
From: His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock on 13 Aug 2010 18:56
On Aug 13, 8:41 am, Frank Studt <frank.st...(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Am 13.08.2010 15:28, schrieb the TibetanMonkey
>
>
>
> > I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
> > GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.
>
> So you think its ok to worsen the Road Safety of cyclists if measures
> are taken that get riders out (BTW there isnt any proof that segregated
> bicycle facilities do such a thing). In other words if a few cyclists
> get killed or mutilated in the process you think its acceptable? Why
> dont we just randomly shoot some car drivers every day? A suppose it
> will get the job done too, ie. gets riders out.
>
> Frank

Only a very stupid party sustains a war where the casualties are
unsustainable. We need the surge first and then see what happens. It's
fair war anyway.
From: His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock on 13 Aug 2010 19:04
On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Jim A <j...(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 12:37 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
> wrote:
>
> > Sometimes to you can say something in a single paragraph...
>
> > "This book opened my eyes and explained that often the safest place
> > to ride is in the path of cars simply because you are more visible to
> > motorists. At first I didn’t believe that it would be safer but having
> > tried
> > it (and some of the other ideas in the book) I would recommend it."
>
> >http://www.cyclecraft.org/book_reviews.html
>
> > Beautiful, now HOW DO WE TAKE --AND HOLD-- THE LANE? What kind of
> > grinding war are you ready to wage? Where is the organization to hold
> > this effort together and not fall apart one cyclist at a time?
>
> I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
> you need it then give it back for a bit.

This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
position I just earned? ;)

From: His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock on 13 Aug 2010 19:21
On Aug 13, 12:01 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/2010 4:49 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In message <nLudndvOk8gL2_nRnZ2dnUVZ_sydn...(a)earthlink.com>, at 15:08:05
> > on Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Bolwerk <bolw...(a)gmail.com> remarked:
> >>>> SUVs are probably of limited practicality almost anywhere.
>
> >>> The number of seats, and luggage capacity, is useful anywhere.
>
> >> Even when SUVs do confer those features, they are useful so rarely to
> >> be of limited practicality.
>
> > We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
>
> It's not really a matter of opinion. A typical car trip in the United
> States is fewer than two passengers for almost any type of vehicle.
> (SUVs achieve almost 2 passengers.)
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw613.html
>
> I couldn't find a cite for this with a cursory Google search, but IIRC,
> most trips don't include cargo, and what cargo they do sometimes include
> are things like groceries.
>
> Of course, none of this means such vehicles serve no purpose whatsoever,
> but it's hard to make a case they have features the bulk of the people
> who own them depend on.
>
> _Most_ people in rural America just need a car.

Half the cars at the local supermarket are SUVs, so the distance
traveled is probably under two miles, something doable by bicycle.

I have a campaign going called 'BIKE LOCALLY BUY LOCALLY." We must
emphasize this particular use of the bike, not commuting.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
Next: Spare parts for a filing cabinet?